In Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services v. Tamara A., 178 Md. App. 686, 943 A.2d 653 (2008), the Court addressed the issue of whether a fully litigated finding in a CINA proceeding that Ms. A. neglected her child precluded Ms. A. from challenging the indicated neglect finding before OAH. 178 Md. App. at 690. Ms. A. requested a contested case hearing before OAH after she was found responsible for indicated neglect of her child. Id. at 689. The Montgomery County Department of Health and Human Services ("MCDHHS") moved to dismiss the case based on collateral estoppel and argued that "the factual issue of whether Ms. A. had neglected her child had been fully litigated in the CINA proceeding." Id. at 693. The ALJ denied MCDHHS's motion to dismiss because it concluded that MCDHHS "had not established that the factual issue to be litigated in the administrative hearing was litigated in the prior CINA proceeding." Id. at 694. The Court disagreed with the ALJ and held that the issue that was to be decided at the contested case hearing, i.e., "whether Ms. A. was responsible for indicated neglect," was the same issue that was decided at the CINA hearing. Id. at 701. Because there was no dispute that the other three factors necessary for collateral estoppel were present, we concluded that Ms. A. was precluded by the doctrine of collateral estoppel from litigating before the OAH MCDHHS's finding that she was responsible for indicated neglect. Id.